I just tested with a bottle of water, clearly heavier than air. The bottle was standing on the table, I gripped it (didn't bother to lift it, though), and then released it from hand again. Nothing happened. The bottle wasn't making even the slightest movement towards the ground.
Terrorist 1: I don't know, the plan for our new attack should long have arrived. Maybe the US have caught the document? Terrorist 2: Oh, you're right, maybe we should look at the government site? Terrorist 1: Good idea. Indeed, there it is. They didn't yet manage to translate it, and they put it on the net in the hope that someone else does it for them. Terrorist 2: Oh, let's see... oh, we attack tomorrow! Ok, lets send them a slightly wrong translation and then surprise them with our attack. Terrorist 1: Great. Let's tell them it's planned next week. So to which competing terror organization do we want to send them?
Of course, the Google cache is more complicated, and I guess it would really need a lawyer to sort this out. However there should be a few things noted:
1. Laws are different in different countries. So even if in the Netherlands it is forbidden to show an external page in a frame, it may still allowed in other countries, so then Google would just have to avoid putting a server doing that in the Netherlands and put it in one of those other countries instead.
2. Google doesn't show any advertisement on the cache pages (I just checked one out to be sure). So they don't directly make money from the cache display (they of course indirectly make money from it because that service makes their search engine more attractive, which means there will be more views for the ads on the search pages).
3. Google really only caches the text part, loading all images etc. from the original site. Since ads usually are not part of the site, but loaded indirectly from another server (usually as images), I doubt that there are any ad revenue losses through Google cache (although I might be wrong here). Indeed, the usual suspects try to set cookies if I access a cached site with advertisement. Moreover, since the cache is usually used only if the original site isn't available, it may even increase ad revenues for those pages, since users can click through the ads even if the main page is currently not available.
Things may be different for image search, however (I guess if Google ever gets trouble for caching web content, it will likely be due to image search).
4. What "people" think is all but coherent (I for one think "framing" of original content is OK as long as it's made obvious that the framed content isn't provided by the framer). So any argument of "people think X, and people think Y, but X and Y contradict each other" is by definition flawed. You have to show that it is the same people who think X and Y to have an argument. Otherwise you might also argue the inconsistency of "people think OSS is great" and "people think OSS is bad", because you can find both opinions.
I currently use http://www.archivum.info/ - while the interface is not perfect, I still like it much better than the current Google interface. It is unfortunately not a complete replacement.
BTW, DejaNews already started to get worse before Google acquired them. That was around the time when they changed their name from DejaNews to just Deja.
You can inhibit Google from archiving your Usenet posting by adding "X-No-Archive: yes" to the message header, or as first line in the message body. It will still be shown for a short while on Google, but when you are posting on Usenet, it's actually part of the system that your message is copied to any number of servers, stored there for a limited time, and made accessible to anyone, so while IANAL, I'd guess by posting to Usenet you give implicit permission to do that.
So in short, Google archives all Usenet posting where the author doesn't say that he doesn't want it archived. Therefore the analogy would be that you can record, archive and republish any music and other programming unless the author says he doesn't want this. And indeed, this is almost the current copyright situation. The difference is that the default for radio broadcasts is the reverse: Unless the author explicitly allows you to rebroadcast, you may not.
I guess if the default would be changed, then the only difference would be that radio stations would start to explicitly say all the time that you may not rebroadcast their material. Which I don't consider an improvement over the current situation.
To understand recursion, follow the instructions you get by adding its quote after the text "To understand recursion, follow the instructions you get by adding its quote after the text"
Scenario: Someone working at the IT department of a shop (thus having inside knowledge of the system) gets fired and wants to harm the shop. The shop will make damn sure that he will not have access to the system afterwards (and let's assume that network access is well protected, too). However, he may well be able to smuggle a malicious RFID tag into the shop. There it lies, unnoticed, until a few days later some unsuspecting customer buys the item thus tagged. As soon as the tag is read by the scanner, the attack happened.
Of course this helps with switched RFID tags between products (i.e. if someone tries e.g. to buy a TV for the price of a box of potato chips). However, if the goal is to attack the system, by the time the cashier sees the image (or rather, doesn't see it) it is already too late: The attack already happened.
With mail providers offering unlimited space, you could also do an "email backup": Just mail your encrypted data to your webmail account for backup, and read mail from that account for restore.
However, you have to be careful that you don't try to decrypt SPAM mails in the process:-)
And I still don't know what I should make of "Vista" (except to put "hasta la" in front, which surely is not what MS wanted to imply...) Interestingly, this is clearly not an Open Source project:-)
I think you're misreading my emphasis here - what surprised me were things that I certainly never was aware of at school in the UK during my education, for example:
Someone sussed out the earth was round a long time before Galileo / Columbus.
Inded, some figured that out in Ancient Greece! Indeed, Eratosthenes even measured the circumference!
Also, Galilei didn't find out that the earth is round (note that he was born in 1564, while Magellan's ship finished the first circumnavigation in 1522, thus already proving the round shape of earth). I don't know why so many people have this misconception.
Of course one problem is that geeks tend to have negative gravitative mass, resulting in a repulsive force, except on other geeks, who are indeed attracted by a geek - but then, those are usually of the same gender...
Please show me one human in the world whose statements are never influenced by his bias. I strongly doubt that you can show me that person. Please note that this influence isn't necessarily intentional. Your bias has an influence on what information you get, what information sources you consider reliable and what information you consider important.
And yes, also my statements may be (and probably are) influenced by my bias (although not intentionally). I guess I'm now doing an ad hominem against myself:-)
BTW, the accuracy of the statements are not the only (and not even the most important) place where a bias can show up. More importantly it's the selection or presented facts and arguments where bias shows.
For example, imagine in Ad Hoc City there were 1000 crimes this year, but 1200 crimes last year. Now you can report that there were 1000 crimes, and that this is bad. Which are absolutely correct and accurate statements. You can also say that there were 200 crimes less than the year before, and that this is a positive development. Which are also absolutely correct and accurate statements. Yet if you contrast both, you'll easily see the different bias.
Well, it helps you to weight the arguments. If someone who has reason to argue in a certain bias, or has done so before, suddenly starts to argue in another one, this has far more significance than if he argues in the expected bias.
For example, say that one day Richard M. Stallman would say he found out the Free Software model sucks. Then you'd surely pay much more attention to it than if Bill Gates said it, right? That's because RMS is clearly not expected to do so, therefore something very strong must have happened. That can be one of two things: Either he got somehow compromised (simple example, someone pointed a gun to his head and demanded he said it), or there was a very convincing reason for him to change his mind (in which case you certainly want to pay close attention to his argumentation, to see if it convinces you as well).
Also, remember that people seldom say something just to say it. Most often they say something in order to achieve something. And knowing what they might want to achieve helps you to value their statements as well: Statemets which are not helpful for such a goal need not be checked too much, it's likely they are right (even more so, if they go in the opposite direction). Statements which are helpful for their goals are to be seen more critical.
For example, say a movie maker tells you that he considers his latest movie (soon to be in the cinemas) to be the best he ever made, it might be that he just wants to get more people to go to the movie. So you most likely give less value to it than the same statement from some alledgedly independent source who has no advantage from telling you this. OTOH should the movie maker tell you that the movie is not as good as his previous one, it's something you'll likely believe: Why should he say so, if it isn't true?
You can tell YaST to leave your config alone (not only globally, but also specifically for certain configs). Also, you can tweak your configs with xy.local files (xy is the name of the corresponding config file), which will be read in addition to the YaST-generated xy file, and never be touched by YaST (I'm not sure if that's possible for all config files, though).
Nothing - You must use "is", and "is" alone: "if X is Nothing" but "if X is Not Nothing" does not work. Its syntatically legal, but youhave to do if Not(X is Nothing)
Didn't Microsoft get granted a patent for ISNOT? I guess after they figured out this extremely innovative operation, you can use "if X ISNOT Nothing":-)
Given that in your list I see an output instruction (Print) but no input instruction, I guess that's the 12th instruction. BTW, what's the difference between Go and Jump?
For those who missed it, it should be./test, test invokes/bin/test
Depends on your shell. On bash, test invokes a shell builtin (unless you disabled that, of course, and of course unless you did an alias or shell function definition of that name, say alias test=./test).
BTW, AFAIK in C (unlike in C++) you still have to explicitly return a value from main, i.e. your program has undefined behaviour. Moreover, AFAIK you have to add #include <stdio.h> because functions with variadic argument lists (such as printf) have to be explicitly declared and prototyped even in C.
Slashdot Mirror
I just tested with a bottle of water, clearly heavier than air. The bottle was standing on the table, I gripped it (didn't bother to lift it, though), and then released it from hand again. Nothing happened. The bottle wasn't making even the slightest movement towards the ground.
No, it's not a dupe, it's the second version. The first one was found to be too buggy.
Of course this raises the question: Will those robots in the US be allowed to drink, err ... refuel in the public? :-)
At some terrorist place:
... oh, we attack tomorrow! Ok, lets send them a slightly wrong translation and then surprise them with our attack.
Terrorist 1: I don't know, the plan for our new attack should long have arrived. Maybe the US have caught the document?
Terrorist 2: Oh, you're right, maybe we should look at the government site?
Terrorist 1: Good idea. Indeed, there it is. They didn't yet manage to translate it, and they put it on the net in the hope that someone else does it for them.
Terrorist 2: Oh, let's see
Terrorist 1: Great. Let's tell them it's planned next week. So to which competing terror organization do we want to send them?
Of course, the Google cache is more complicated, and I guess it would really need a lawyer to sort this out. However there should be a few things noted:
1. Laws are different in different countries. So even if in the Netherlands it is forbidden to show an external page in a frame, it may still allowed in other countries, so then Google would just have to avoid putting a server doing that in the Netherlands and put it in one of those other countries instead.
2. Google doesn't show any advertisement on the cache pages (I just checked one out to be sure). So they don't directly make money from the cache display (they of course indirectly make money from it because that service makes their search engine more attractive, which means there will be more views for the ads on the search pages).
3. Google really only caches the text part, loading all images etc. from the original site. Since ads usually are not part of the site, but loaded indirectly from another server (usually as images), I doubt that there are any ad revenue losses through Google cache (although I might be wrong here). Indeed, the usual suspects try to set cookies if I access a cached site with advertisement. Moreover, since the cache is usually used only if the original site isn't available, it may even increase ad revenues for those pages, since users can click through the ads even if the main page is currently not available.
Things may be different for image search, however (I guess if Google ever gets trouble for caching web content, it will likely be due to image search).
4. What "people" think is all but coherent (I for one think "framing" of original content is OK as long as it's made obvious that the framed content isn't provided by the framer). So any argument of "people think X, and people think Y, but X and Y contradict each other" is by definition flawed. You have to show that it is the same people who think X and Y to have an argument. Otherwise you might also argue the inconsistency of "people think OSS is great" and "people think OSS is bad", because you can find both opinions.
I currently use http://www.archivum.info/ - while the interface is not perfect, I still like it much better than the current Google interface. It is unfortunately not a complete replacement.
BTW, DejaNews already started to get worse before Google acquired them. That was around the time when they changed their name from DejaNews to just Deja.
You can inhibit Google from archiving your Usenet posting by adding "X-No-Archive: yes" to the message header, or as first line in the message body. It will still be shown for a short while on Google, but when you are posting on Usenet, it's actually part of the system that your message is copied to any number of servers, stored there for a limited time, and made accessible to anyone, so while IANAL, I'd guess by posting to Usenet you give implicit permission to do that.
So in short, Google archives all Usenet posting where the author doesn't say that he doesn't want it archived. Therefore the analogy would be that you can record, archive and republish any music and other programming unless the author says he doesn't want this. And indeed, this is almost the current copyright situation. The difference is that the default for radio broadcasts is the reverse: Unless the author explicitly allows you to rebroadcast, you may not.
I guess if the default would be changed, then the only difference would be that radio stations would start to explicitly say all the time that you may not rebroadcast their material. Which I don't consider an improvement over the current situation.
To understand recursion, follow the instructions you get by adding its quote after the text "To understand recursion, follow the instructions you get by adding its quote after the text"
Scenario: Someone working at the IT department of a shop (thus having inside knowledge of the system) gets fired and wants to harm the shop. The shop will make damn sure that he will not have access to the system afterwards (and let's assume that network access is well protected, too). However, he may well be able to smuggle a malicious RFID tag into the shop. There it lies, unnoticed, until a few days later some unsuspecting customer buys the item thus tagged. As soon as the tag is read by the scanner, the attack happened.
Of course this helps with switched RFID tags between products (i.e. if someone tries e.g. to buy a TV for the price of a box of potato chips). However, if the goal is to attack the system, by the time the cashier sees the image (or rather, doesn't see it) it is already too late: The attack already happened.
I think that could alienate the customers ;-)
Yes there is. It's called business.
With mail providers offering unlimited space, you could also do an "email backup": Just mail your encrypted data to your webmail account for backup, and read mail from that account for restore.
:-)
However, you have to be careful that you don't try to decrypt SPAM mails in the process
And I still don't know what I should make of "Vista" (except to put "hasta la" in front, which surely is not what MS wanted to imply ...) Interestingly, this is clearly not an Open Source project :-)
Inded, some figured that out in Ancient Greece! Indeed, Eratosthenes even measured the circumference!
Also, Galilei didn't find out that the earth is round (note that he was born in 1564, while Magellan's ship finished the first circumnavigation in 1522, thus already proving the round shape of earth). I don't know why so many people have this misconception.
Of course one problem is that geeks tend to have negative gravitative mass, resulting in a repulsive force, except on other geeks, who are indeed attracted by a geek - but then, those are usually of the same gender ...
I didn't know that there are several NSAs out there. Pretty good move to stay secret by reusing a name already taken! :-)
Please show me one human in the world whose statements are never influenced by his bias. I strongly doubt that you can show me that person. Please note that this influence isn't necessarily intentional. Your bias has an influence on what information you get, what information sources you consider reliable and what information you consider important.
:-)
And yes, also my statements may be (and probably are) influenced by my bias (although not intentionally). I guess I'm now doing an ad hominem against myself
BTW, the accuracy of the statements are not the only (and not even the most important) place where a bias can show up. More importantly it's the selection or presented facts and arguments where bias shows.
For example, imagine in Ad Hoc City there were 1000 crimes this year, but 1200 crimes last year. Now you can report that there were 1000 crimes, and that this is bad. Which are absolutely correct and accurate statements. You can also say that there were 200 crimes less than the year before, and that this is a positive development. Which are also absolutely correct and accurate statements. Yet if you contrast both, you'll easily see the different bias.
Well, it helps you to weight the arguments. If someone who has reason to argue in a certain bias, or has done so before, suddenly starts to argue in another one, this has far more significance than if he argues in the expected bias.
For example, say that one day Richard M. Stallman would say he found out the Free Software model sucks. Then you'd surely pay much more attention to it than if Bill Gates said it, right? That's because RMS is clearly not expected to do so, therefore something very strong must have happened. That can be one of two things: Either he got somehow compromised (simple example, someone pointed a gun to his head and demanded he said it), or there was a very convincing reason for him to change his mind (in which case you certainly want to pay close attention to his argumentation, to see if it convinces you as well).
Also, remember that people seldom say something just to say it. Most often they say something in order to achieve something. And knowing what they might want to achieve helps you to value their statements as well: Statemets which are not helpful for such a goal need not be checked too much, it's likely they are right (even more so, if they go in the opposite direction). Statements which are helpful for their goals are to be seen more critical.
For example, say a movie maker tells you that he considers his latest movie (soon to be in the cinemas) to be the best he ever made, it might be that he just wants to get more people to go to the movie. So you most likely give less value to it than the same statement from some alledgedly independent source who has no advantage from telling you this. OTOH should the movie maker tell you that the movie is not as good as his previous one, it's something you'll likely believe: Why should he say so, if it isn't true?
You can tell YaST to leave your config alone (not only globally, but also specifically for certain configs).
Also, you can tweak your configs with xy.local files (xy is the name of the corresponding config file), which will be read in addition to the YaST-generated xy file, and never be touched by YaST (I'm not sure if that's possible for all config files, though).
Didn't Microsoft get granted a patent for ISNOT? I guess after they figured out this extremely innovative operation, you can use "if X ISNOT Nothing"
Given that in your list I see an output instruction (Print) but no input instruction, I guess that's the 12th instruction.
BTW, what's the difference between Go and Jump?
Ok, then probably the right language to teach is Whitespace.
Depends on your shell. On bash, test invokes a shell builtin (unless you disabled that, of course, and of course unless you did an alias or shell function definition of that name, say alias test=./test).
BTW, AFAIK in C (unlike in C++) you still have to explicitly return a value from main, i.e. your program has undefined behaviour. Moreover, AFAIK you have to add #include <stdio.h> because functions with variadic argument lists (such as printf) have to be explicitly declared and prototyped even in C.
You mean DNF will be written in Perl 6?